FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-22-2011, 09:16 PM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,810
Default

You would have to be talking about Eusebius of Caesarea the historian, not Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia who was a friend of Arius and supported him.
aeebee50 is offline  
Old 12-22-2011, 09:20 PM   #12
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Toto in another thread brought up a similar argument from silence, and I will repost my response here. Toto is too busy with holiday cheer to continue to argue with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
My contention was that "hardly any writing was ever copied and saved." Your claim was that my contention "is disproven by the literature that has survived from this period." I think your claim is preposterous, and I think you should know better by now.

According to the census of Augustus in AD 14, there were 4,937,000 people in the empire. Let's say that we limit ourselves to 100 years and a generation lasts 25 years, to be generous. So, we quadruple this number, and we have 20,000,000 people. Out of 20 million people, the writings of only 42 authors remain with us.

42/20,000,000 = 1/476,000

Out of every 476,000 people, only one person wrote something whose writings remain. This is a vanishingly small amount of extant writings.

But, I actually specified the "time and place" of Jesus. I know this is ambiguous, and we can get a good idea of our historical expectations if we choose what "time" and "place" we are talking about. If we are very specific with the time and place like I was, then we drastically diminish the number of extant authors, and we are down to only one: again, Philo of Alexandria. If we are generous with our time and place, like you are, then we have a social context of millions of people. One way or the other, it is problematic for your position.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 12-22-2011, 10:47 PM   #13
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
...... Paul was the most popular Christian, who claimed responsibility for bringing Christianity from the Jews to the Gentiles, and he was the only "apostle" who had the means to write. Christianity would not be expected to have the motivation or the means to preserve writings from non-apostles until their churches were large and financially well off. Arguments from silence really need to be made in light of points like these.
It is YOUR argument that was derived from DEAD AIR, utter Silence.

1. You know that there is ZERO corroboration, Complete Silence, from non-apologetic sources of antiquity that Paul was the most popular Christian. See ALL or any Extant non-apologetic sources of antiquity

2. You know that in the Pauline writings Paul claimed he did NOT get his gospel from any man . See Galatians 1.10-12.

3. You know that there is ZERO corroboration, Complete Silence, for your claim that Paul was the only "apostle" that had the means to write.

4. You seem to have ZERO idea that there were Christians, like Simon Magus, Menander, Marcion, Valentinus, Carporcrates, Cerinthus, Basilides, Saturnilians that had documented their doctrines and beliefs.

5. If it was SO COSTLY to write how did the Bishop Ignatius manage to WRITE SEVEN Epistles while supposedly on his way to Rome under guard?
aa5874 is offline  
Old 12-22-2011, 11:33 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default

Hi ApostateAbe,

This Jewish history Professor Meir Bar-Ilan here suggests overall literary rates at under 3% in Israel, although urban centers like Jerusalem might have had literary rates of up to 15%.

We should remember that no post offices existed. While military officials and very wealthy people could communicate through letter writing, sending servants on long journeys to deliver them, this was not an option for ordinary citizens. You would actually need to know a person going to a particular place to get a letter delivered. This also meant that you could not expect to receive an answer to a letter for months or years, as the person you sent the letter to would have to find someone going to your town who was willing to deliver the letter.

There is also the problem of scribes. Some or all of Paul's letters were written by scribes. How much input they had is impossible to say.

How much interpolation the letters had is also impossible to say.

It was also a popular rhetorical exercise to pretend to be a well known person and write a letter that you imagined that person would write.

Published letters are perhaps the least trustworthy of all texts from this time period, although no texts are entirely trustworthy.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Well, you mean to tell me that theologians and apologists of the faith write whole books and none of their colleagues bothers to preserve a shred, yet letters written by. One of many supposed preachers writes letters for eva gelical purposes. remain hidden for 100 years and reappear in pristine condition from various locations as if by magic?
Sort of, though I don't see what is magic about it, and the letters would be "hidden" only in retrospect, when we have only extant writings to examine. Writing was not something just anyone could do. Only 10% of the population could read, and only those who hired professional scribes could write. In that time, "writing" something typically meant hiring a scribe to write what you tell him. And it wasn't cheap, either. Paul was the most popular Christian, who claimed responsibility for bringing Christianity from the Jews to the Gentiles, and he was the only "apostle" who had the means to write. Christianity would not be expected to have the motivation or the means to preserve writings from non-apostles until their churches were large and financially well off. Arguments from silence really need to be made in light of points like these.
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 12-22-2011, 11:49 PM   #15
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
...It was also a popular rhetorical exercise to pretend to be a well known person and write a letter that you imagined that person would write....
You mean people would write letters and books to THEMSELVES and claim it was from a well known person.

It does NOT any sense for a person to think he is a well known person and writes letters and books so that in effect that he GETS no benefit from his pretense.

For example, a man named Moses may have written the 10 commandments himself and then claim it was really WRITTEN by God.

Eusebius may have written parts of "Against Heresies" himself and then claimed it was written by Irenaeus.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 01-02-2012, 08:09 AM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

The Bottom Line here, aa5874, is that these so-called historians are merely commissioned or uncommissioned biased loyalists and not objective unbiased historians. So how can ANYTHING significant that they claim be taken at face value? It makes absolutely no sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
...It was also a popular rhetorical exercise to pretend to be a well known person and write a letter that you imagined that person would write....
You mean people would write letters and books to THEMSELVES and claim it was from a well known person.

It does NOT any sense for a person to think he is a well known person and writes letters and books so that in effect that he GETS no benefit from his pretense.

For example, a man named Moses may have written the 10 commandments himself and then claim it was really WRITTEN by God.

Eusebius may have written parts of "Against Heresies" himself and then claimed it was written by Irenaeus.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 01-02-2012, 10:43 AM   #17
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
The Bottom Line here, aa5874, is that these so-called historians are merely commissioned or uncommissioned biased loyalists and not objective unbiased historians. So how can ANYTHING significant that they claim be taken at face value? It makes absolutely no sense....
Every single word from an APOLOGETIC Source is EXTREMEMLY, EXTREMELY Significant.

Would you dimiss the oral or WRITTEN statements of a person accused of committing a crime even if you think that they may have lied?

Would you dismiss the CONFESSION of a person who previously lied?

Written and oral statements from the accused are NOT ever dismissed. Every statement, oral or written, can be held AGAINST the accused.

Every single word, every single statement from an APOLOGETIC Source of ANTIQUITY must, must, be taken into account.

Now, there is evidence that "Church History" attributed to Eusebius may be the work of more than one author or was written AFTER Eusebius was already dead. .

In "Against the Galileans", The Emperor Julian issued a challenge that showed he was UNAWARE that Josephus wrote about Jesus and UNAWARE of "Church History" attributed to Eusebius, UNAWARE of "Against Celsus" and "Commentary on Matthew" attributed to Origen.

"Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian the Emperor c 360 CE
Quote:
.... But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters....
Julian declared that he is to be considered a TOTAL LIAR if anyone can show that WELL-KNOWN writers mentioned Jesus and Paul.

In the ENTIRE lifetime of Julian up to "Against the Galileans" Julian the Emperor did NOT appear to be AWARE that writings attributed to EUSEBIUS did state that Josephus, a WELL-KNOWN writer, did mention Jesus.

We KNOW that the Roman Church was involved in FRAUDULENT activities when it had in its possession a most fruadulent document the "Donation of Constantine".
aa5874 is offline  
Old 01-02-2012, 11:29 AM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

I see your point, but in terms of establishing or inferring anything about objective facts it is impossible based on these people, and I am increasingly surprised that scholars would take chronologies and descriptions of "heresies" from someone like Eusebius seriously in reconstructing events....
Duvduv is offline  
Old 01-02-2012, 11:58 AM   #19
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
I see your point, but in terms of establishing or inferring anything about objective facts it is impossible based on these people, and I am increasingly surprised that scholars would take chronologies and descriptions of "heresies" from someone like Eusebius seriously in reconstructing events....
It cannot be impossible to established that many writings attributed to certain writers are chronologically and historically bogus.

Again, NOTHING written in antiquity can be dismissed. NOTHING.

The writing called "Church History" attributed to EUSEBIUS does ACTUALLY CONTAIN the Clues or CODES to determine which writings are FRAUDULENT.

From "Church History", I was able to deduce that the following writings were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.

1. Writings under the name of Paul were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


2. Writings under the name of Ignatius were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


3. Writings under the name of Clement of Rome were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


4. Writings under the name of Polycarp were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


5. Writings under the name of Papias were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


6. Writings ubder the name of Irenaeus were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


7. Writings under the name of Clement of Alexander were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


8. Writings under the name of Origen were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


9. Writings under the name of Tertullian were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


It is IMPERATIVE that "Church History" be taken EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY seriously and NOT be DISMISSED.

"Church History" attributed is probably the MOST significant writing of the Church and PROVIDES MANY, MANY CLUES and CODES to show that the History of the Jesus cult of Christ as stated in the very book is INDEED FRADULENT.

Ironically, "Church History" is a detailed document of EXACTLY how the FRAUD was carried out.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 01-02-2012, 12:04 PM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Clues and codes?????????? About how the fraud took place??
What's that supposed to mean?

Why on Earth would anyone such as Eusebius do that?? I have been taking all these discussions seriously, and now I am wondering why........
Duvduv is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:28 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.